RESUMO

Immunoglobulin IgG4-related disease (IgG4-RD) is an immune-mediated fibroinflammatory condition with a characteristic histopathological appearance that can affect almost any organ. The clinical features result from a focal or diffuse appearance of a tumor-like swelling of the affected organs, identified by physical and/or imaging examination. Herein, we report the case of a 38-year-old male complaining of a worsening chronic right lumbar pain associated with legs and scrotum edema. He also had itchy and erythematous cutaneous lesions on the abdominal wall over the last 8 months, and complained of a diffuse and mild to moderate abdominal discomfort. On examination, the liver was firmly enlarged and tender. His legs had 2+ symmetrical pitting edema extending from his feet to just above the knees. An abdominal computed tomography scan showed a large mass (10 x 8 x 4cm) involving the abdominal infrarenal aorta and the iliac arteries, and compressing the inferior vena cava, with dilated iliac veins, raising the possibility of lymphoproliferative disease. During the initial investigation, the laboratory workup revealed anemia, without other marked changes. A laparoscopic-guided biopsy of the peri-aortic mass was undertaken. The histological report associated with IgG4 immunoglobulin measurement rendered the diagnosis of IgG4-RD. The patient had a favorable outcome after the use of glucocorticoids with the abdominal mass remission.

Assuntos

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Feedback is a powerful learning tool, but a lack of appropriate feedback is a very common complaint from learners to teachers. To improve opportunities for feedback on objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs), a modified examiner role, termed the "shadow" examiner, was tested. This study aims to present and analyze comparisons between the "shadow" examiner and the original OSCE examiner format. METHODS: In 2011, experiments were carried out with modifications to the examiner's role to define the "shadow" examiner format. From February 2012 to May 2014, research was conducted with 415 6th-year medical students. Of these students, 316 were randomly assigned to assessments by both "shadow" and "fixed" examiners. Pearson correlation analysis with linear regression, Student's t-tests and Bland-Altman plots were the statistical methods used to compare the assessment modes. To strengthen the analysis, checklist items were classified by domain. RESULTS: High correlations between the "shadow" and "fixed" examiners' global scores were observed. The results of the analysis of specific domains demonstrated higher correlations for cognitive scores and lower correlations for affective scores. No statistically significant differences between the mean examiner global scores were found. The Bland-Altman analysis showed that the "shadow" examiners' affective scores were significantly higher than those of the "fixed" examiners, but the magnitude of this difference was small. CONCLUSION: The modified examiner role did not lead to any important bias in the students' scores compared with the original OSCE examiner format. This new strategy may provide important insights for formative assessments of clinical performance.

Assuntos

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Feedback is a powerful learning tool, but a lack of appropriate feedback is a very common complaint from learners to teachers. To improve opportunities for feedback on objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs), a modified examiner role, termed the "shadow" examiner, was tested. This study aims to present and analyze comparisons between the "shadow" examiner and the original OSCE examiner format. METHODS: In 2011, experiments were carried out with modifications to the examiner's role to define the "shadow" examiner format. From February 2012 to May 2014, research was conducted with 415 6th-year medical students. Of these students, 316 were randomly assigned to assessments by both "shadow" and "fixed" examiners. Pearson correlation analysis with linear regression, Student's t-tests and Bland-Altman plots were the statistical methods used to compare the assessment modes. To strengthen the analysis, checklist items were classified by domain. RESULTS: High correlations between the "shadow" and "fixed" examiners' global scores were observed. The results of the analysis of specific domains demonstrated higher correlations for cognitive scores and lower correlations for affective scores. No statistically significant differences between the mean examiner global scores were found. The Bland-Altman analysis showed that the "shadow" examiners' affective scores were significantly higher than those of the "fixed" examiners, but the magnitude of this difference was small. CONCLUSION: The modified examiner role did not lead to any important bias in the students' scores compared with the original OSCE examiner format. This new strategy may provide important insights for formative assessments of clinical performance.

Assuntos